What kind of atheist are you?

[Vorkosigan]

You were kidding about being tolerant though.

You advocate for a belief system whose goal is to destroy every other belief system on earth, and you accuse others of intolerance?

And no, I’m an extremely tolerant person. I just don’t tolerate systems of belief that are out to destroy my own beliefs. Why should I tolerate an end to myself?

May as well ask me to “tolerate” missiles pointed at me, or poisons in my food.

[quote=“Dragonbones”]
While I really agree with your statement that “I have total tolerance for religions that tolerate me, but none for religions that don’t”, if you fail to make the above distinction, then as Fortigurn points out, you yourself are not showing the tolerance you preach.[/quote]

Can’t recall preaching tolerance. Can you point out where I did that? My position is reciprocal tolerance, not tolerance for all beliefs, however destructive.

Dragonbones, the idea that you can distinguish between different types of Christianities is part of the problem. Christianity as a whole is a structure with many branches and many supports and legitimation strategies. The “nice” ones legitimate the “nasty” ones, but is all part of one whole. Where do you think the fundies come from, DB? They aren’t coming from atheist families – on the whole people raised atheists don’t become fundies. They come from apatheists, people with vague spiritual beliefs, and from the ranks of liberal Christianity, a vast pool of individuals raised to consider it possible that the Great Santa in the sky really does kill a kitten each time we jerk off.

Michael

[Fortigurn]

@Vorkosigan

[quote]You were kidding about being tolerant though.

You advocate for a belief system whose goal is to destroy every other belief system on earth,[/quote]

No I don’t.

and you accuse others of intolerance?

Sorry, tu quoque fallacies won’t get you anywhere.

And no, I’m an extremely tolerant person. I just don’t tolerate systems of belief that are out to destroy my own beliefs.

So basically you’re exactly the same kind of person as those people against whom you rail. But we already knew that. They think they’re tolerant also.

[quote]Why should I tolerate an end to myself?

May as well ask me to “tolerate” missiles pointed at me, or poisons in my food.[/quote]

No one is asking you to tolerate an end to yourself.

Christianity as a whole is a structure with many branches and many supports and legitimation strategies. The “nice” ones legitimate the “nasty” ones, but is all part of one whole.

No, they don’t legitimate the nasty ones.

[Dragonbones]

V, you claim to be tolerant here:

@Vorkosigan

I’m an extremely tolerant person.

and here

@Vorkosigan

I have total tolerance for religions that tolerate me

but you lump all forms of Christianity together here, calling them hate-filled:

@Vorkosigan

I hope someday to see a world where we are entirely free of hate-filled, intolerant, authority-centered belief systems like Islam, Christianity

That’s neither rational nor tolerant. There is no “Christianity as a whole”. There are vast differences between the beliefs, practices and levels of tolerance of different sects. You, as a student of religion, should know that. I’ve never met an intolerant member of the Religious Society of Friends or an intolerant Christadelphian, for instance, nor are their churches ‘authority-centered’.

Dragonbones, the idea that you can distinguish between different types of Christianities is part of the problem.

I don’t see any rational basis for your claim that my ability to distinguish between different types is part of a problem. The ability to distinguish between things which differ is what makes us thinking humans. It’s what makes us rational.

Christianity as a whole is a structure with many branches and many supports and legitimation strategies.

There is no “whole”. There is no overall “structure”.

The “nice” ones legitimate the “nasty” ones

That statement doesn’t make any sense to this reader. Nothing legitimates the nasty ones. They are nasty, and not legitimate. The nice ones legitimate themselves, and should be judged for what they are, not for what others are.

Where do you think the fundies come from, DB?

The fundies come from HERE.

[Vorkosigan]

@Fortigurn

[quote=“Vorkosigan”][quote]You were kidding about being tolerant though.

You advocate for a belief system whose goal is to destroy every other belief system on earth,[/quote]

No I don’t.[/quote]

Yes, you do. The whole point of missionizing is to eliminate competing beliefs and replace them with your own. Until every tongue praises, and every knee bends… and there is hardly anything less tolerant than an institutional commitment to the total elimination of all other beliefs.

Of course, when people point out that you’ve declared all other beliefs invalid and in need of being replaced by your own ASAP, all you can do is accuse them of being intolerant. What else is left? Like those 50 centers who accuse people of hating China whenever they point out that China keeps concentration camps and locks up political prisoners. Same authority-centered belief system, different details, is all…

Vorkosigan

[Dragonbones]

@Vorkosigan

Yes, you do. The whole point of missionizing is to eliminate competing beliefs and replace them with your own. Until every tongue praises, and every knee bends… and there is hardly anything less tolerant than an institutional commitment to the total elimination of all other beliefs.

No, he doesn’t. In my dealings with him online and in person, he has never shown any intolerance toward the beliefs of others, nor has he displayed any signs of wanting to proselytize. He knows I’m not a theist, and he’s comfortable with and respectful of that.

Please deal with the real posters at hand and the real posts they make, not the demons you imagine them to be and the agendas you fantasize about them having.

[Vorkosigan]

[quote=“Dragonbones”]V, you claim to be tolerant here:

@Vorkosigan

I’m an extremely tolerant person.

and here

@Vorkosigan

I have total tolerance for religions that tolerate me

but you lump all forms of Christianity together here, calling them hate-filled:

@Vorkosigan

I hope someday to see a world where we are entirely free of hate-filled, intolerant, authority-centered belief systems like Islam, Christianity

That’s neither rational nor tolerant. [/quote]

Excuse me, I said I am a tolerant person. I did not “preach tolerance.” Big diff. If I said I was fat, would you accuse me of preaching being fat?

And it is rational to want an end to absolutisms of every stripe, since they are responsible for so much misery.

There is no “Christianity as a whole”. There are vast differences between the beliefs, practices and levels of tolerance of different sects. You, as a student of religion, should know that. I’ve never met an intolerant member of the Religious Society of Friends or an intolerant Christadelphian, for instance, nor are their churches ‘authority-centered’.

I’m well aware that there are sects within Christendom. So what?

I don’t see any rational basis for your claim that my ability to distinguish between different types is part of a problem. The ability to distinguish between things which differ is what makes us thinking humans. It’s what makes us rational.

Now you’re just trolling. Who denies that it is rational to distinguish between things? But sometimes it is rational also to view them as a whole, to see how the different branches work together.

[quote]

Christianity as a whole is a structure with many branches and many supports and legitimation strategies.

There is no “whole”. There is no overall “structure”.

The “nice” ones legitimate the “nasty” ones

That statement doesn’t make any sense to this reader. Nothing legitimates the nasty ones. They are nasty, and not legitimate. The nice ones legitimate themselves, and should be judged for what they are, not for what others are.[/quote]

Makes sense to me Dragonbones. The various parts interact. Ever read how Christian of Sect A uses behavior of Sect B to legitimate their own behavior? The way you read, for example, how “Christians” helped end slavery in the US though in fact none of the mainstream Christian sects did that, only the splinter groups? Etc. The reason I view it as a whole is because its various parts coordinate together, interact, and legitimate each other. I – as a student of religion – know that. If every Christian were a Quaker, Christianity would be, like Quakerism, a small and insignificant religious sect doing no particular harm to the world. But it is not. Take the Catholic Church – hideously conservative and authoritarian institutionally – and many of its parts object to the actions of its leadership. Yet they all forward resources to that leadership, and legitimate its actions through their use of the term Catholic, etc. The parts work together even to form a whole that is nasty even when the people are nice.

The bane of human morality are beliefs in which transcendent absolutes like God, the State, the Objective Laws of History, Allah, etc, legitimate social action. Absolutism kills.

Now you will say – but Michael, not all Christians are absolutists. And I will reply: They don’t need to be DB. How many missionaries are there? Few. But they draw on the resources of people who don’t missionize. The parts work to form a whole…

Michael

[Vorkosigan]

@Dragonbones

[quote=“Vorkosigan”]Yes, you do. The whole point of missionizing is to eliminate competing beliefs and replace them with your own. Until every tongue praises, and every knee bends… and there is hardly anything less tolerant than an institutional commitment to the total elimination of all other beliefs.

No, he doesn’t. In my dealings with him online and in person, he has never shown any intolerance toward the beliefs of others, nor has he displayed any signs of wanting to proselytize. He knows I’m not a theist, and he’s comfortable with and respectful of that.

Please deal with the real posters at hand and the real posts they make, not the demons you imagine them to be and the agendas you fantasize about them having.[/quote]

DB – please read what I write. What do you think I meant about institutional commitment?

Michael

[Vorkosigan]

Let’s come at it another way. I think we both agree that the invasion of Iraq was a great moral wrong. Now here is a list of people…

1. the military who actually performed the invasion.
2. the political leaders who ordered it.
3. the chattering classes who supported it and argued for it.
4. the citizens who approved it, passively or actively.

Now my position is that everyone in that chain is morally wrong and they all share in the blame for that ethical wrong. But your position is that nice people in 1-4 are not wrong and that the diversity of belief about the invasion means that there is no structure at work, etc.

Of course, that’s not a perfect analogy. But you get my point. Proselytizing for religion is ethically indefensible and everyone in the system participates in that wrong.

Michael

[Fortigurn]

@Vorkosigan

Yes, you do. The whole point of missionizing is to eliminate competing beliefs and replace them with your own. Until every tongue praises, and every knee bends… and there is hardly anything less tolerant than an institutional commitment to the total elimination of all other beliefs.

Vorkosigan, you don’t even know me. I know you, because you’re a recognised Internet presence, especially on IIDB. But you don’t know me. I believe that Christianity has a moral imperative to evangelize, but not a moral imperative to convert. This is made explicit in the New Testament. Vive la difference.

The passage to which you allude, you are taking completely out of context. It is not a missional statement.

Of course, when people point out that you’ve declared all other beliefs invalid and in need of being replaced by your own ASAP, all you can do is accuse them of being intolerant. What else is left?

I have never declared all other beliefs invalid and in need of being replaced by my own ASAP.

Like those 50 centers who accuse people of hating China whenever they point out that China keeps concentration camps and locks up political prisoners. Same authority-centered belief system, different details, is all…

I haven’t accused anyone of intolerance or hatred simply because they disagree with me (and your analogy is really offbase since I’m not defending anything analogous to China keeping concentration camps). You are still committing the ad hominem fallacy. Your usual level of discourse is well above this. Why sink so low?

[quote]Let’s come at it another way. I think we both agree that the invasion of Iraq was a great moral wrong. Now here is a list of people…

1. the military who actually performed the invasion.
2. the political leaders who ordered it.
3. the chattering classes who supported it and argued for it.
4. the citizens who approved it, passively or actively.

Now my position is that everyone in that chain is morally wrong and they all share in the blame for that ethical wrong.[/quote]

That’s my position also. I am certain that is DB’s position.

But your position is that nice people in 1-4 are not wrong and that the diversity of belief about the invasion means that there is no structure at work, etc.

No that is not his position, and nor is it mine. It is my position that the people in (5), whom you failed to mention, are not wrong. The people in (5) are those who did not approve of it, passively or actively. It is also my position that the ‘nice people in 1-4’ are morally wrong despite being nice.

Ever read how Christian of Sect A uses behavior of Sect B to legitimate their own behavior?

That doesn’t legitimize them. That’s an illegitimate appeal on their behalf.

The way you read, for example, how “Christians” helped end slavery in the US though in fact none of the mainstream Christian sects did that, only the splinter groups? Etc.

It’s true to say that ‘Christians’ helped end slavery in the US. It isn’t true to say that ‘all Christians’ helped end slavery in the US. But I don’t know anyone who would say that. Both I and DB would agree that the Christian groups who did do not legitimze the Christian groups who did not. But your claim is that the Christian groups who did not illegitimizes the Christian groups who did.

@Dragonbones

That’s a terrible analogy, not really worth a response.

Don’t judge Vorkosigan by this exchange. He’s usually far more intellectually coherent than this and he is well recognized for it. But that’s usually when he’s on IIDB exchanging polite views with other atheists. He tends to save his irrational posts for non-atheists. I don’t know the reason for the inconsistency, but I do know that his correspondence with atheists reveals his true measure of intellect and capacity for intelligent, respectful discussion.

[Vorkosigan]

And one more thing while I’m here, DB. Wanna get a sense of how all those “nice” people have changed things? Just recall the 19th century, when the Republicans begged Robert Ingersoll, the great atheist and orator, to be their Presidential candidate. Or the election of 1860, in which neither candidate was a believer. In this day of “tolerant” Christianity, think that could happen in the US?

[Fortigurn]

@Vorkosigan

And one more thing while I’m here, DB. Wanna get a sense of how all those “nice” people have changed things? Just recall the 19th century, when the Republicans begged Robert Ingersoll, the great atheist and orator, to be their Presidential candidate. Or the election of 1860, in which neither candidate was a believer. In this day of “tolerant” Christianity, think that could happen in the US?

Sure it could. But you need more US citizens to actually muster up sufficient interest in politics to start voting. You can’t blame the Christians for the pathetic level of voter participation in the US. People will vote if they care.

By the way, you need to recognize two points. Firstly this is Forumosa. You’re not preaching to the choir here, as on IIDB. You’ll find a range of free thinking minds here, who disagree with your views on secular grounds. This will come as a shock. Secondly you’re in discussion with many people who do not view the US as the center of the universe and the means by which every argument should be weighed and valued. A slight adjustment of your ethnic prejudice may be in order.

[Vorkosigan]

Vorkosigan, you don’t even know me. I know you, because you’re a recognised Internet presence, especially on IIDB.

How could I be a “presence” here when I hardly ever post here? EDITED: Sorry, now I see you meant IIDB.

But I haven’t posteed there outside the BCH forum in, like, four years. Nobody knows me there.

But you don’t know me. I believe that Christianity has a moral imperative to evangelize, but not a moral imperative to convert. This is made explicit in the New Testament. Vive la difference.

When are we going to stop having this discussion? I already know you’re a wonderful guy. You’re own niceness or nastiness is not the point here. It has nothing to with the point here.

The passage to which you allude, you are taking completely out of context. It is not a missional statement.

No it is a proclamation of the future status of Jesus as the figure to which every tongue will praise and all knees will bend. It is a proclamation of the absolute authority of Jesus over mankind, and it is taken from an OT passage that proclaims the absolute authority of God.

But you’re right. It is not a missional statement. It just an expression of desire for authority over everything.

I have never declared all other beliefs invalid and in need of being replaced by my own ASAP.

Didn’t need to. That’s the institution you subscribe to.

[quote]But your position is that nice people in 1-4 are not wrong and that the diversity of belief about the invasion means that there is no structure at work, etc.

No that is not his position, and nor is it mine. It is my position that the people in (5), whom you failed to mention, are not wrong. The people in (5) are those who did not approve of it, passively or actively. It is also my position that the ‘nice people in 1-4’ are morally wrong despite being nice.[/quote]

Yes, we’re really disagree then on where to put believers like yourself. You want to keep putting yourself into (5) but my perception is that you are in (4). What you are really doing is saying that “i cannot be in (4) because I am not that way” and I am responding “the structure is such that you cannot be anywhere but 1-4 until you leave the structure entirely.”

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

By the way, you need to recognize two points. Firstly this is Forumosa. You’re not preaching to the choir here, as on IIDB. You’ll find a range of free thinking minds here, who disagree with your views on secular grounds. This will come as a shock.

LOL. Hardly. I hardly “preached to the choir” at IIDB either. In fact, it’s comical to hear that, if you knew any of the long, bitter discussions we had at IIDB.

Secondly you’re in discussion with many people who do not view the US as the center of the universe and the means by which every argument should be weighed and valued. A slight adjustment of your ethnic prejudice may be in order.

Wow. You know how it is with us Americans who marry foreigners and live overseas our whole adult lives. The US is just the center of the universe to us.

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

@Fortigurn

[quote=“Vorkosigan”]And one more thing while I’m here, DB. Wanna get a sense of how all those “nice” people have changed things? Just recall the 19th century, when the Republicans begged Robert Ingersoll, the great atheist and orator, to be their Presidential candidate. Or the election of 1860, in which neither candidate was a believer. In this day of “tolerant” Christianity, think that could happen in the US?

Sure it could. But you need more US citizens to actually muster up sufficient interest in politics to start voting. You can’t blame the Christians for the pathetic level of voter participation in the US. People will vote if they care.[/quote]

Fort, have you actually read any of the polls that have repeatedly said that Americans will not elect an atheist?

[Fortigurn]

@Vorkosigan

[quote]Vorkosigan, you don’t even know me. I know you, because you’re a recognised Internet presence, especially on IIDB.

How could I be a “presence” here when I hardly ever post here? I mean, like 4 posts a month, and never in this forum. Ok, once.[/quote]

I didn’t say you were a presence here. Please read my posts. I said you are a recognized Internet presence, especially on IIDB.

When are we going to stop having this discussion? I already know you’re a wonderful guy. You’re own niceness or nastiness is not the point here. It has nothing to with the point here.

We are going to stop having this discussion when you stop attributing to me beliefs I do not hold. This has nothing to do with my niceness or nastiness, neither of which are under discussion.

[quote]No it is a proclamation of the future status of Jesus as the figure to which every tongue will praise and all knees will bend. It is a proclamation of the absolute authority of Jesus over mankind, and it is taken from an OT passage that proclaims the absolute authority of God.

But you’re right. It is not a missional statement. It just an expression of desire for authority over everything.[/quote]

Now you’re getting it. Please don’t misappropriate quotes again.

Didn’t need to. That’s the institution you subscribe to.

No it isn’t. I don’t subscribe to any institution.

Yes, we’re really disagree then on where to put believers like yourself. You want to keep putting yourself into (5) but my perception is that you are in (4).

If you want to put me in (4), then you’re being willfully dishonest. You cannot put me in a group of people holding view X, when I hold view Y.

What you are really doing is saying that “i cannot be in (4) because I am not that way” and I am responding “the structure is such that you cannot be anywhere but 1-4 until you leave the structure entirely.”

No, I am saying I am not in (4) because I do not meet the criteria for (4). I meet the criteria for (5).

@Vorkosigan

LOL. Hardly. I hardly “preached to the choir” at IIDB either. In fact, it’s comical to hear that, if you knew any of the long, bitter discussions we had at IIDB.

Come now Vorkosigan, you know as well as I do what I mean when I talk of you preaching to the choir at IIDB. There’s a reason why it’s called the Internet Infidels Data Base. Yes I’ve read many of the ‘long, bitter discussions’, but you and I know that if you’re talking about your disagreements with other atheists, these are mere spats between choir members. Of course I’m perfectly aware of your disagreements with believers, but these aren’t what I was referring to when I spoke of you preaching to the choir.

Wow. You know how it is with us Americans who marry foreigners and live overseas our whole adult lives. The US is just the center of the universe to us.

It isn’t to all Americans, still less to those who marry foreigners and live overseas our whole adult lives. But it is reflected in your posts. When you cease using the US as a metric in these discussions, I’ll have reason to believe otherwise. It’s amazing to me that you can have lived in Taiwan for so long and still see the world through a US lens.

Fort, have you actually read any of the polls that have repeatedly said that Americans will not elect at atheist?

No. Relevance? And did you note my comment about voter participation in US politics? Has it ever reached 50% in the last 15 years? Is it likely to do so at any time in the future, do you think? You complain about the minority running the country, but the fact is the majority are letting them do it.

[Vorkosigan]

I didn’t say you were a presence here. Please read my posts. I said you are a recognized Internet presence, especially on IIDB.

Sorry, I DID misread your post, for some reason I thought you meant FORUMOSA. I haven’t been a “presence” (and never was) on IIDB for some years now, since the famous moment when they brought in theists as mods and a bunch of us decided to move on.

We are going to stop having this discussion when you stop attributing to me beliefs I do not hold.

My point is that you do not need to hold those beliefs because I am not discussing what individuals think.

Now you’re getting it. Please don’t misappropriate quotes again.

ROFL.

[quote]Yes, we’re really disagree then on where to put believers like yourself. You want to keep putting yourself into (5) but my perception is that you are in (4).

If you want to put me in (4), then you’re being willfully dishonest. You cannot put me in a group of people holding view X, when I hold view Y.[/quote]

Your personal view is not relevant, fort, to whether you are part of (4). That is really the issue here.

[quote]What you are really doing is saying that “i cannot be in (4) because I am not that way” and I am responding “the structure is such that you cannot be anywhere but 1-4 until you leave the structure entirely.”

No, I am saying I am not in (4) because I do not meet the criteria for (4). I meet the criteria for (5). [/quote]

What, you’re a non-Christian?

@Vorkosigan

Come now Vorkosigan, you know as well as I do what I mean when I talk of you preaching to the choir at IIDB. There’s a reason why it’s called the Internet Infidels Data Base. Yes I’ve read many of the ‘long, bitter discussions’, but you and I know that if you’re talking about your disagreements with other atheists, these are mere spats between choir members. Of course I’m perfectly aware of your disagreements with believers, but these aren’t what I was referring to when I spoke of you preaching to the choir.

They are not “spats between choir members.” IIDB has every flavor of freethinker on it and a ton of theists as well.

[quote]Fort, have you actually read any of the polls that have repeatedly said that Americans will not elect at atheist?

No. Relevance? And did you note my comment about voter participation in US politics? Has it ever reached 50% in the last 15 years? Is it likely to do so at any time in the future, do you think? You complain about the minority running the country, but the fact is the majority are letting them do it.[/quote]

I didn’t complain about a minority running the country. I complained about the intolerance Christianity has fostered in my home nation. Big difference. Although I totally agree about voter participation.

EDIT: Sorry, quotes are a mess.

Vorkosigan

[Dragonbones]

@Vorkosigan

And one more thing while I’m here, DB. Wanna get a sense of how all those “nice” people have changed things? Just recall the 19th century, when the Republicans begged Robert Ingersoll, the great atheist and orator, to be their Presidential candidate. Or the election of 1860, in which neither candidate was a believer. In this day of “tolerant” Christianity, think that could happen in the US?

You don’t need to convince me about the problems which result from having a United States dominated by forms of Christianity which are far too often intolerant and pushy, Vorkosigan. I often complain about the imposition of what should be private faith on public life. But that’s not relevant to the discussion we were having about the diversity of Christian sects vis-a-vis tolerance and authoritarianism. I repeat, do you truly believe that ALL forms of, say, Christianity, are hate-filled, intolerant, authority-centered belief systems? I don’t believe they are, and you’ve not presented anything to convince me otherwise. Bad analogies involving the Iraq war included.

BTW, as a friendly reminder, please don’t read anything into my posts or positions which I’ve not stated, btw. And my above posts have been quite sincere, so there’s no need to insult me with the ‘trolling’ label. I was hoping for a more mature dialogue with you than that.

[quote]Let’s come at it another way. I think we both agree that the invasion of Iraq was a great moral wrong. Now here is a list of people…

1. the military who actually performed the invasion.
2. the political leaders who ordered it.
3. the chattering classes who supported it and argued for it.
4. the citizens who approved it, passively or actively.

Now my position is that everyone in that chain is morally wrong and they all share in the blame for that ethical wrong.[/quote]

You forgot the political leaders who opposed it, the chattering classes and citizens who opposed it, and those who think the political leaders who ordered it should be impeached for their dishonesty and tried for war crimes.

That’s my position also. I am certain that is DB’s position.

Sure, but what’s the relevance of this to the point at hand? (And which point?) The analogy doesn’t really fit the situation in which we have disparate and independent groups of Christians with varied beliefs, practices, and degrees of tolerance (rather than a government + masses structure, with a specific wrong action by the government).

@Fortigurn

[quote=“Vorkosigan”]… the election of 1860, in which neither candidate was a believer. In this day of “tolerant” Christianity, think that could happen in the US?

Sure it could. But you need more US citizens to actually muster up sufficient interest in politics to start voting. You can’t blame the Christians for the pathetic level of voter participation in the US. People will vote if they care.[/quote]

When the majority of Christian people in the U.S. refuse to consider a candidate if he’s not Christian, then those people are to blame for religious bigotry. Sad, but true. Unlike Vorkosigan, though, I don’t then turn and irrationally blame all Christians. It’s not a question of whether or not to blame Christians for levels of voter participation. I agree that there is apathy, but one cannot blame the apathetic for the religious bigotry. One can only blame the apathetic for allowing the bigotry to rule the day. And blame them I do.

[Dragonbones]

@Vorkosigan

My point is that you do not need to hold those beliefs because I am not discussing what individuals think.

Yes you are.

my perception is that you are in (4).

You advocate for a belief system whose goal is to destroy every other belief system on earth

[quote]No, I am saying I am not in (4) because I do not meet the criteria for (4). I meet the criteria for (5).

What, you’re a non-Christian? [/quote]

Oh, for Baal’s sake, please stop with that irrelevant analogy.

[Vorkosigan]

You don’t need to convince me about the problems which result from having a United States dominated by forms of Christianity which are far too often intolerant and pushy, Vorkosigan. I often complain about the imposition of what should be private faith on public life. But that’s not relevant to the discussion we were having about the diversity of Christian sects vis-a-vis tolerance and authoritarianism. I repeat, do you truly believe that ALL forms of, say, Christianity, are hate-filled, intolerant, authority-centered belief systems? I don’t believe they are, and you’ve not presented anything to convince me otherwise. Bad analogies involving the Iraq war included.

Aargh. Of course I don’t believe that every sect of Christianity is that way. But if you regard Christianity as a disaggregated group of sects with no relationship to each other, then really, there’s nothing to discuss, is there?

BTW, as a friendly reminder, please don’t read anything into my posts or positions which I’ve not stated, btw. And my above posts have been quite sincere, so there’s no need to insult me with the ‘trolling’ label. I was hoping for a more mature dialogue with you than that.

Well – just as a friendly reminder – when you accuse people of being irrational and intolerant, you can’t blame people if they respond negatively.

[quote]Let’s come at it another way. I think we both agree that the invasion of Iraq was a great moral wrong. Now here is a list of people…

1. the military who actually performed the invasion.
2. the political leaders who ordered it.
3. the chattering classes who supported it and argued for it.
4. the citizens who approved it, passively or actively.

Now my position is that everyone in that chain is morally wrong and they all share in the blame for that ethical wrong.

You forgot the political leaders who opposed it, the chattering classes and citizens who opposed it, and those who think the political leaders who ordered it should be impeached for their dishonesty and tried for war crimes. [/quote]

Right, because those guys are (5) the non-believers. They are not in the chain of people who bear moral responsibility.

So the discussion is really whether it is possible to wear the label “Christian” and not be in (1-4) with respect to the missionary project. You claim that because of diversity it is possible to be a Christian and to be in (5). I don’t think that is possible.

Vorkosigan

[Dragonbones]

@Vorkosigan

if you regard Christianity as a disaggregated group of sects with no relationship to each other, then really, there’s nothing to discuss, is there?

That’s correct, V – there really isn’t much to discuss, once you’ve seen the flaw in your argument.

You NEED to imagine that they’re all part of one institution, in order to make your analogy work, and in order to be able to blame them all for the acts of a subset. Others can see that reality is quite different from this.